Dalmia Jain &amp; Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

…the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 7) CIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd (263 CTR 686) (Guj.) (HC) 8) PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd [2017] 81 taxman…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

…the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 7) CIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd (263 CTR 686) (Guj.) (HC) 8) PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd [2017] 81 taxman…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

…the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 7) CIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd (263 CTR 686) (Guj.) (HC) 8) PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd [2017] 81 taxman…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 1001/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

…the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 7) CIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd (263 CTR 686) (Guj.) (HC) 8) PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd [2017] 81 taxman…

ARVIND ENVISOL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 32Section 37

…the expenses were split inot relating to existing and new patents. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Arvind Envisol Limited vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 8– Court in the case of Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754, wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also no…

M/S. BANDHAN BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE GHOSH FINANCE LTD),KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Paul, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(vi)Section 192Section 250Section 37

…It is a general principle that any expenditure incurred for the purpose of business is a deductible expenditure and the amount spent by an assessee for labour/em- ployees' welfare, would be deductible as revenue expenditure. In Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754], the Hon'ble supreme court held that "expenditure incurred for maintenance of business is revenue in nature". 8.7 According to the assessees, the ESOP benefit is taxable in the hands of em- ployees as 'perquisite' under section 17(2) of the Act and it was brought within the purview of Fringe Benefit Tax, which is an employee related expenditure.…

ACIT CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7181/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…gned order on the following decisions to mention the yardsticks for determination of an expenditure as capital or revenue- Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) Dalmia Jain & Co. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 754 (Cal) M.K. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC) Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 566 (SC) F. Woodrofe and Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 0665 (Madras) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 0371 (Delhi) From the aforementioned judicial precedents, one thing bec…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2536/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…gned order on the following decisions to mention the yardsticks for determination of an expenditure as capital or revenue- Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) Dalmia Jain & Co. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 754 (Cal) M.K. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC) Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 566 (SC) F. Woodrofe and Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 0665 (Madras) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 0371 (Delhi) From the aforementioned judicial precedents, one thing bec…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2280/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…gned order on the following decisions to mention the yardsticks for determination of an expenditure as capital or revenue- Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) Dalmia Jain & Co. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 754 (Cal) M.K. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC) Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 566 (SC) F. Woodrofe and Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 0665 (Madras) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 0371 (Delhi) From the aforementioned judicial precedents, one thing bec…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METRONATION CHENNAI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3358/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 92B

…gned order on the following decisions to mention the yardsticks for determination of an expenditure as capital or revenue- Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) Dalmia Jain & Co. vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 754 (Cal) M.K. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC) Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 566 (SC) F. Woodrofe and Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 0665 (Madras) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 0371 (Delhi) From the aforementioned judicial precedents, one thing bec…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

…4 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. new patents. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. W…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

…4 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. new patents. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. W…

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

…4 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. new patents. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. W…

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

…4 I.T.A. Nos.1068 & 1166/Kol/2017 ITA Nos. 1222 & 1223/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITC Limited. new patents. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. W…

ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SNAPDEAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

…, such expenditure is not revenue but a capital expenditure.” 7. The Ld. AO placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Assam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) (ii) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) (iii) Dalmia Jain & Co. 81 ITR 754 (SC) (iv) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 745 (Cal) (v) M.K. Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 86 ITR 38 (SC) & Travancore Sugar and Chemical Ltd. vs. CIT 62 ITR 566 (SC) (vi) D.F. Woodrofe and Company Ltd. vs. CIT 102 ITR 665 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. 309 ITR 371 (Del) 8. The Ld. AO considered 50% of the expenditure claimed as capital in nat…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr